in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church".

you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years.

the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes.

As Con I will be arguing that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself at least once in 2,000 years' history. As requested, I will not count issues of limbo or "no salvation outside the Catholic Church".

Pro states that "the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considered 'infallible'." While I find this criteria rather subjective, it goes without saying that the Pope represents the Catholic Church and his word is final and infallible, as he is the closest living man on Earth to God's word.

While the Pope teaches on faith and morals, a part of this has always been the upholding of Biblical and doctrinal integrity through refutation of scientific advancements. This will be my main line of argument. Has a Pope in the last 2,000 years said something later or earlier contradicted by another Pope in the same timespan? I say absolutely. As the topic is resolved the BOP lies with Pro. As long as I can prove a single instance of two Popes within 2,000 years contradicting each other the debate is clearly my win.

Pope Pius XII addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. Here he makes plain his fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad while attacking those persons who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution " explains the origin of all things." He wrote:

Fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

LESS THAN 50 YEARS LATER, Pope John Paul held an address that caused a commotion within the Catholic community because his liberal acceptance of evolution as a valid theory, factually supported, was considered by many to be contrary to Biblical doctrine. This article was written by a Catholic Christian organization on the matter: http://biblelight.net... It states:

Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable!

I think they may have been exaggerating the extent of John Paul's claims, but it remains certain that at one point the Catholic Church taught that evolution was unfounded and fictitious, only to change tack 46 years later by saying it is a valid scientific theory not disproven by the Bible.

We find the same pattern with concepts like heliocentric theory, birth control and aspects of education. The fact is, each Pope has their own opinion and interpretation of the Bible and God's word. To expect that all Popes in 2,000 years of history and upheaval and cultural change all agree on the same topics is ignorant of the great variety of human belief and the scientific progress developing in this time.

Pope Pius XII addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. Here he makes plain his fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad while attacking those persons who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution " explains the origin of all things." He wrote:

"Fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences."

is it that one could argue encyclicals are not necessarily infallible documents? they could be, all depends on the intention of the pope writing it? what evidences are there in this case, pro and con?

i could i think find some quotes of popes saying evolution is true. but i am assuming it's scientifically validated, evolution. perhaps i shouldnt be so quick to think this?

This seems more so linguistic confusion then anything else. Pius XII rejected evolutionary theory which attempts to usurp God's role as Creator. He did not reject an evolutionary theory which recognizes the hand of a Creator.

From Humani Generis, paragraph 36:

Quote

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

con is going to have to find other examples. specify the quote etc. he cannot just list something like heliocentricity cause people may have misunderstood the quote etc.

This is a game with movable goal posts. Restricting the debate to infallible statements presupposes there is an infallible list of all such. Whoever finds one should win. And without one then many alleged contradictory teaching can be dismissed by the pro side as not being infallible. Ecclesiam nulla salus is excluded without reason, even though that is considered infallible teaching by some.

The reality is that while Catholics denigrated evangelicals for the use of fallible human reasoning, a RC must engage in the same to decide which of the 3 (or 4) levels of the magisterium a teaching falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required, and what degree of dissent, if any, is allowed.

Do RCs have an infallible interpreter of their infallible authority, or is it only Prots that lack that?

Is it true the parameters of Catholic teaching are such that Catholics have a great deal of liberty to interpret the Bible as they see fit?

The question is why is extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is not salvation) disallowed? That infers a contradiction. As for restricting the examples to only infallible teachings, it is a matter of interpretation as to what they all are. Does the poster have an infallible list of all infallible teachings? And even then, only the conclusion itself is considered assuredly infallible, not necessarily the supporting arguments or logic behind it.

Very closed minded debate. The Catholic Church is a clear contraction. Just google how much the church makes a year. And look at the 110 acre vatican, where the anointed pope lives in a multimillion dollar mansion with his own personal guard force. Does this not seem contrary to what Jesus intended when he made Peter head of his apostles?

If this was about the Catholic Church contradicting their version of the Bible I would be all over this. But as bladerunner060 has already pointed out, your requested con would be difficult in any case.